NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/chem/4668

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 3.6 KB | 79 lines

Newsgroups: sci.chem
Path: sparky!uunet!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!rigel.tamu.edu!mjf9968
From: [e-mail] (Pi(3.143832666))
Subject: Re: Gold - future Auto Catalyst
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:03:00 GMT
Lines: 66

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (David Knapp) writes...
>>There
>>are effectively infinite supplies of both metals at concentrations
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>only a few times less than current ores.
>
>Can you expound on what you mean by "effectively infinite"? I mean, is it
>infinite or isn't it?  Can something be 'effectively limited' and still be
>unlimited?
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but the planet is finite, all the metals contained
>are finite and some number. Since we cannot access anything but a tiny
>fraction of the planet, the amount of anything we can get out of that is
>then smaller. And since much of *that* contains only highly dispersed
>(low concentrations) of the metal we wish to retrieve, we cannot cost
>effectively mine all of *that*.  So we've just gone from finite to even
>smaller than finite and my original statment was simply that the supplies
>which we can access and which are cost effective, are not infinite. If
>that is not correct, again, please email me with references which refute that
>so I can look into it.

Some very interesting semantics, but hardly convincing.  One could
make an exactly parrallel argument for anything and quickly see the
stupidity of it:

    "We have an effectively infinite supply of hydrogen."
    "I don't think so, bub!  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the
universe is finite, and furthermore, because of space-travel
limitations, we can only access a embarrasing small bit of it, and
even then, it's not really worth the money to go into space for it.
So obviously we have a *very* FINITE amount of hydrogen about, and
we'd better start conserving now, or in twenty years or centuries
or so, all those fusion scientist are going to be up the creek!"

Or am I nit-picking too, and missing the real point of your
argument-- that technology is man's bane and we should all
go back to an agrarian society?  Or better yet, just right
back to the trees?


Also, you make a point that you are discussing those resources
which are "cost effective".  I think you miss the point of this
term.  You see, as we run out of resources which are presently
"cost effective" to obtain, those that are not cost effective
to obtain *become* cost effective.  Supply and demand and all
that.  For an example, do you think that back in the 20's, when
western Pennsylvania was the crude oil capitol of the world, that
an Alaskan oil field seemed like a good idea?  No.  It would've
lost millions.  But today it makes millions.

I think you, and many decriers of society's "wasteful and
destructive" practices, miss a vital point about humanity--
namely, that it will do *whatever* it takes to survive.

To use your boat anology (however flawed ;) ), so you're stuck
on a boat in the ocean with no food or water.  Well, how about
we catch some fish?-- collect the fish oil, eat the fish, use
the oil to burn and thereby distill water, or better yet:
    "Hey, what's this paddle for?"


Living better through chemistry,
Mike "Pi" Freeman
[e-mail]